Talk:Airplane II: The Sequel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.
Comedy Portal
This article is within the scope of the Comedy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to comedy, comics, comedians, comedy movies, and the like. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

I know in some quarters that Airplane II wasn't as well received as the first movie - mainly because the movie reuses much of the plot from the first film. Still I found the film pretty funny when I first seen it, because I hadn't seen the first movie beforehand. It was only later after seeing the first film I realized the second film was essentialy a re-hash of the first film.
JesseG 02:26, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Mayflower or the fire first?

I am certain that the newscasters report on the Mayflower first, then on the "four-alarm" fire in downtown Tokyo/Moscow/wherever. Think of it, when Leon Askin (of Hogan's Heroes fame) is doing the Russian newscast, he has a gun to his head. No problem reporting on the deaths of American capitalists on the space shuttle, but how dare he report on a fire in the great socialist paradise of Russia?! "Bang" is heard right after he disappears from the screen. GBC 04:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The newscaster report the four-alarm fire first, then the shuttle disaster. In the case of the Soviet reporter, he reports on the fire in Moscow, then says "on the lighter side of news" and reports on the American shuttle. 68.159.191.225 17:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

  • It's also worth pointing out that in reference to the fire, he notes with glee that it "makes way for glorious new tractor factory" Addyboy 13:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars reference to 0.5 past light speed

I have two concerns about the reference to Star Wars: A New Hope. First, is there any reason to believe that both films using "0.5" suggests a connection from one to the other? If not, it doesn't really make sense to be in this article. Second, is it even an error in Star Wars? I'd argue not since the term "warp" is never defined in the Star Wars universe.

I've deleted it for these two reasons. Strandist 20:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gag List

What's the deal with listing every single joke in the movie? I mean, is that really necessary? Quixoto 08:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I love the gag list. I love wikipedia as being a one-stop place (if that's the right term) for finding info on practically anything, and it was awesome to see the gag list and see the ones i had forgotten. I think there's no reason to remove it, and it's good to keep. Sp3ctre18 15:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Is it necessary? No, it isn't - so I've removed it. It's pure list cruft and in no way encyclopaedic - if you want to know every "gag" in the film, then just watch it. Please don't put it back unless you can justify here why it should stay other than being "awesome". Thought I'd say this since an error in a fact tag I added has meant that the removal doesn't show up as the last edit to the page. And oh yeah, citations are needed for things, in a couple of weeks I'll remove the non-sourced things. Addyboy 13:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Congratulations on assuming ownership of this article. Baseball Bugs 22:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm not assuming ownership of the article I'm being proactive in cleaning it up per WP:BOLD. Rather than being sarcastic, may I suggest real reasons why my changes are unjustified? A gag list including everything in the film is blatantly inappropriate and had therefore to be removed.Addyboy 23:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
        • You don't like it, therefore it's out. That's ownership. Baseball Bugs 01:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
          • I don't like it because it's against Wikipedia policies such as WP:TRIVIA and - although it's an essay not policy - WP:LISTCRUFT - if it were up to me to be honest I'd keep the list, I like it - but ultimately that's not how the encyclopedia works. I fail to see how I'm violating WP:OWNERSHIP when my edits were simply to bring the article into line with procedure - and I was being genuine when I invited reasons why the gag list should stay, obviously if consensus is that it should then fair enough - but you're seemingly criticising me for being objective in improving the article, without providing any reasons whatsoever why my edits are in any way inappropriate - anybody looking at it objectively would have done the same thing.Addyboy 07:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC) EDIT: Typo in that last response - inappropriate written as appropriate. Corrected.Addyboy 10:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
            • It's had a number of contributors, and you're a one-man gang opposing it. You are assuming ownership of it. Baseball Bugs 12:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
              • Two points: 1. Please point out the specific part of WP:OWNERSHIP that I'm violating. If there is none, then I'm not taking ownership.

2. Why is that relevant in the first place? You've yet to justify keeping the section - please complete this sentence: Addyboy was wrong to remove the Gag List section because _______. Look, I've pointed out the numerous rules it breaches, so I've been bold in removing it - and will remove unsourced items in the coming weeks if references are not provided - again, this is according to policy. My own personal views have precisely nothing to do with this - the fact that I'm the only one right now opposing the section is relevant to nothing, as my basis is Wikipedia policy and in any case this can be presumed a non-particularly-watched page. So please - stop with the pointless drivel about ownership, and instead tell me I'm wrong to remove the section and why - if you can. If you can't, what is the point of this discussion? I do notice you've not reverted my edits to the article itself, I'm hardly stopping you doing that after all! I just think it should be justified, and again that has nothing to do with my personal feelings - remember that I actually like the list and wish I was allowed to keep it! I give the List of Running Gags list as another example by the way - I supported keeping that list, and reverted it's removal several times until there was consensus to remove it - by which time I'd realised it breached the same guidelines this does and should never have been there in the first place.Addyboy 12:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

                • It's relevant to me and others because we like it, and it's irrelevant to you because you don't like it. Baseball Bugs 12:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
                  • Eh, no. You may like it but then that's not how the encyclopedia works - the list breaches numerous Wiki guidelines as I've illustrated, therefore I had no choice to remove it! If you want it kept, then copy it from the history and post it on your own webspace. I'm tempted to make a copy of it and do just that later on anyway, it's a great list - just not appropriate for Wikipedia. And yet again I'll ask for justification as to how it fits in with policy. If you can provide it I'll happily say hold my hands up, worship you, or whatever it is that you want me to do - but I need to be proven wrong first. I know I was right to remove it, and if you want to put it up for Arbitration or whatever I'm confident I'll win.Addyboy 13:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
                    • The way it works here is that you continue to assert ownership over an article until others get tired of fighting you over it. Baseball Bugs 18:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
                      • I'm really not doing that - I'm just following policy and procedure. If this is objected to arbitration will be required, because that list ain't coming back - I promise you that.Addyboy 19:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Something needs to be done about the single picture of the security screening. The picture is hard to see because it is way too small. Someone needs to upload a larger version or the picture needs to be deleted. Andy120290 21:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  • It's small for a reason: To suggest the scene without it being borderline pornographic. Wahkeenah 22:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Airplane II the sequel.jpg

Image:Airplane II the sequel.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)